« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Roll Call Vote in the Senate on the Repeal of ObamaCare

Senator Vitter (R-LA) last night offered an amendment on the Senate floor to repeal ObamaCare. The roll call vote is below. The vote was on the motion to table the amendment. If you table an amendment, you kill it or, literally, set it aside. So, a Yea vote means that Senator is against repeal. Not a single Democrat voted to repeal. Every Republican voted to repeal.

This vote ought to give some additional clarity for opponents running against Democratic Senators who have tried to have it both ways on ObamaCare. For example, Senator Vitter’s opponent in November, a House member who voted against ObamaCare on Sunday, has issued a statement that he is against repeal.

YEAs —58 Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs —39

Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Brown (R-MA) Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting — 3

Bond (R-MO) Byrd (D-WV) Isakson (R-GA)

COMMENTS

  • Woo_girl

    that some no votes were gimmes. Now this brings it out in the open. Thanks!

    • Repair_Man_Jack
      • tritonspolartiger

        …now let’s see if the D’s are dense enough to go around trumpeting this vote. Might help keep our guys on the right path (repeal) in the next several months, especially once they discover that a vote for repeal polls MUCH higher than a vote to keep this fetid bucket of pig slop.

  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    But I wonder why he didn’t vote? And where was Isakson?

    • Hugh

      I read in the paper here that Isakson is in the hospital in Atlanta.

    • kdoc

      is in the hospital – not serious, but a bacterial infection.

  • earthmover

    There better be substance behind the cheerleading. Otherwise we’re screwed.

    That’s all the repeal talk is – cheerleading. It’s mathematically impossible unless everything goes our way in both ’10 and ’12. There better be substantive plans for what to do next year that involve more than screaming for repeal or nothing.

    • Repair_Man_Jack
      • earthmover

        But what part of “mathematically impossible before 2013″ do you not understand Mr. Repair Man Jack?

        • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

          I’ve had this argument before over nullification, so it is still fresh. The states are now de facto repealing it, sans court, which leaves the govt with having to show cards they’d just as soon not show so soon…i.e, the legislative power of the war lords (czars). It’s slash and burn, but it can work.

    • Kyle-MI

      Rasmussen reports that 55% support repeal. This isn’t just the right thing to do, it is also the politically favorable thing to do.

      • redneck_hippie

        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill

      • martinrocket

        To get a realistic idea of how many want repeal, you need to listen to more than Rasmussen.

        • janis

          So who would you suggest we listen to besides Rasmussen? You do know that he’s had the most accurate polls in elections since 2004, don’t you?

          You didn’t know that? But we did.

          • earlgrey

            Personally, I like to imagine that even their models will be flawed in 2010, because there is so much outrage it will be harder to say who is a likely voter. I guess I am hoping that we see a tsunami of voters coming out to protect their liberties where they would have ordinarily stayed home.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            …and they’re a Dem-leaning firm. Their worst oopsie was NY-23, which was mucked up; but they were accurate in VA, NJ, & MA.

            And they’re *worried* about the Dems’ chances.

          • swami7774

            …also nailed the last 2 presidential elections.

        • Menlo

          No one else limits results to the people who are likely to turn out to vote.

        • JadedByPolitics

          you know REGISTERED VOTERS and or LIKELY VOTERS and not some stupid random adults that you and your ilk like to see in polls!

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I can’t tell you how accurate *I* think they are, but I’ll know by November.

          • eburke

            is because he invests more time and money into crafting his pool of likely voters.

            I can’t remember the exact numbers because it’s been a while since I looked into this but he does 2 things that no one else does (’cause it’s too expensive) First, he polls party affiliation as a totally separate poll with no other questions. That way the questions themselves in the rest of the poll don’t influence party affiliation. Most pollsters ask for party identification at the conclusion of the poll.

            Secondly, he samples (and here’s where my memories a little fuzzy) I think it is 6,000 people a *week* and then puts together a 4 week moving average for party ID.

            His LV screen is about as expansive as the rest (though the details escape me at them moment) Accuracy in polling is all about obtaining a sample group that reflects the composition of those who are going to come out and vote and unlike the alphabet polls who are still polling +12 – 15 Dem samples, and who are polling adults, Ras does *the* best job of getting his sample to reflect who’s actually going to be at the polls.

            That’s why he’s so good.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            He has a distinctive model of LVs.

            His success or failure as a horserace pollster hinges on that model.

      • earthmover

        We need a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to override what would be a sure-fire Presidential veto of repeal. To do so, we need to win 115 seats in the House in November. We also need to find a way to win 26 Senate seats in November, even though only 16 Democrats are up for re-election.

        Yes, it is the right thing to do. Yes, it is probably the politically favorable thing to do. However, it also a mathematically impossible thing to do. Thus, the need for alternative, realistic planning for what to do when we have more power in 2013 after which we have used repeal as a campaign slogan and rallying point.

        • Oz

          Then I’m sure that President Romney / Palin / Jindal / Daniels would sign it.

          There are also options to not fund it in 2011 … trust me … we can learn from how the Dems de-fund war.

          • earthmover

            Repeated inquiries here into what could be done pre-2013 had only resulted in insults and bullying (see below), so thank you.

            I see that Boehner talked about not funding it today, too. I hadn’t thought of that before. That will be quite a fight as well, I’m sure, but with control of the House (at least) we will have more of a say in things than we do now.

            I’m glad there is some realistic thinking going on with the leadership and not just talking points for the sake of talking points, as most people here are stuck on.

          • janis

            What’s surprising is that you haven’t managed to run across it yet. It was mentioned in a number of places just the other day, both here and elsewhere.

            But it’s nice that you finally recognized that we are not DOOMED.

        • janis

          So do you want to respond to someone who’s telling you a positive actions that we can take, or do you want to continue to gnash your teeth and moan about how we can’t do this thing?

          Every single remark you’ve made has been negative eeyore-isms on this matter. I dare you to say one hopeful, positive thing about erasing ObamaCare from the nation’s financial spreadsheets. Just one…..

          • earthmover

            Grow up. Being a bully only makes you look like a moron. A little critical thinking never hurt anyone even though it is often in short supply around here.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            And by ‘please’ I mean ‘now.’

            Moe Lane

            PS: Don’t make the mistake of thinking that you can finesse it, or whether I care that you think that life is unfair.

          • janis

            I would like to state right here and now for the RedState record:

            I do solemnly swear never again to refer to someone’s behavior as similar to any animal that ever lived in the Hundred Acre Wood.

            There. I said it and I feel cleansed once more, light even, as though my tail was made out of springs…..

        • weatherford

          Any dolt can make a good plan, carrying it out is were nerve, perserverance, agility,and guts make the difference. The Senate GOP is beginning to show a bit of innovation and tenacity — despite near hopeless “leadership.”

          Planners stay behind the lines and tend to worry about civics and rules of engagement; they cannot think on their feet or react quickly to change in what is inherently a fluid situation.

          In fact, sometimes — no, oftentimes — planners are just dead weight and are routinely and roundly ignored by those facing the fight.

          Logisticians are vital — and planners must be tolerated, but they should never be allowed to screw up an ongoing operation.

          Thank you, Senator DeMint, for showing real leadership where it counts!

        • mrjiblet

          if you count Bennett (R? UT).

          I’m surprised he didn’t stumble all over himself to reach across the aisle and build some bridges with his brothers on the other side. Had this not been an election year, I’m sure we would have seen a different vote from Bob.

  • http://biggator5.net/archive.html BigGator5

    Now we know who is for and against repealing this dumb thing. I’m guessing the Democrats are all holding hands and jumping off a cliff together.

    I take back my comments that this was a pointless vote.

    • weatherford

      And I cant remember if I posted an excessively strident relpy to you. If I did, please allow me to retract it.

  • Hugh

    as many times as we can. Don’t let up. Be like a pit bull after a steak. We are in the minority but we are not dead. See how many times you can get Reid to say “I don’t know what they are trying to do”. I wish he could come up with some new script. Dan, how long do you think this can be drawn out?

    • weatherford

      I dont speak for Dan but my guess is that he would think Senators DeMint and Vitter did a credible, maybe, a superior, job in bucking their own “leadership.”

      If your question pertains to the whole process of the slow roll, if a few stand firm on the Senate Floor, it can be dragged out until November. That is a completely reasonable objective.

      It involves fighting EVERYTHING — following the People’s definition that, if Obama wants it, we dont.

      Sure, there will be a little heat, but it will come from those who would never truly be with us under any circumstance. Heat means success.

      It can be done.

  • nessa

    Hopefully this is a sign of things to come, though I’m not holding out much hope. Too bad Lindsay doesn’t have a conservative opponent hot on his tail, I’m sure he’d be wearing his conservative costume just like his mavericky brother from another mother, McLame.

  • snowshooze

    Are failing too.
    As this has to head back over to the house again anyway…
    Why do the Democrats even stonewall the stuff they would normally dive on and support?
    Is it that the points of order patches are clean and do not demand debate?
    I still hope they can bury it alive somehow, but realize it is all uphill.
    Mark

  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    …can be found here. He’s already getting drilled locally for the inconsistency of his position.

    • weatherford

      Blowing this turkey’s cover, in itself, was worth the vote Vitter got.

      More good will come.

      Hope Dan gets back on line soon. I understand he worked the Senate problem pretty hard and is probably thoroughly burned out.

      We are well on the way to making repeal, rather than the marvels of HCR, the public issue. If that tempo continues, the MSM can lipstick this pig all it wants and never get traction.

  • RoscoeP

    Any word on who got to Mcconnell and told him to shape up and get with the program?

    • weatherford

      My info, which has not been confirmed, is that it was Senators DeMint and Vitter themselves joined by a group of others of like mind.

      Chairman Steele may have also helped, but if he did, he must have felt it pretty important and we will never know. (In laying a groundwork, it was quite important.)

  • Xasteius

    Let’s retire her in 2012, just after Carnahan in 2010.

    • Bill S

      Her “true colors” have been known ever since she was elected. She’s a Democrat lapdog. If you thought otherwise, you were quite naive.

      • Xasteius

        I know personally from several people in the MO-State Democrats that she was a witch, her positions on issues not withstanding.

  • redneck_hippie

    That is why I was disappointed with the noises yesterday contra voting. To have not allowed a vote would have been an alarm bell, loosing the hounds of primary destruction.

    The other side is constantly trying to slaughter the truth of what is and what will actually happen with HCR.

    Best that our side understand and keep understanding that this is all out war. There is no middle ground.

    Lynn Sweet of the Chi Sun Times was on am radio this morning saying that we will immediately have bans for disallowing pre-existing conditions. Our work is never done.

  • huskerchuck

    Don’t know why I thought there’d even be a question about how Nelson would vote, even though he’s been under an immense amount of pressure here. These types of votes pretty much tell me he’s given up on running in ’12, and is looking to get as much hay out of the Dems while he can, so that maybe he can get something.

    Kerrey was worse than this, but I expected it from him. He targeted it so early it wasn’t a surprise. But even Exon from NE didn’t turn traitor to the people in Nebraska like Nelson has.

  • renny

    Great video – Author Kevin Jackson smacks down David Shuster MSNBC; Subject: Breitbart.tv ? ?The BIG Black Lie? Author Debates MSNBC?s Shuster on Tea Party ?Violence?

    Look for billboard on I-70 in Missouri on “Citizens’ Guide to Revolution”

  • erod
  • erod
    • tritonspolartiger

      …we (and our reps/senators) must pursue repeal as the ONLY acceptable outcome. This disaster cannot be allowed to stand.

  • Bill

    It will take a minimum of 291 seats in the House and 70 votes in the Senate to repeal this crap. 2/3 of the House and 2/3 in the Senate are needed to over ride an Obama veto. I say 291 in the House and 70 in the Senate because there will always be swishy RINOs who want do it. So, best go for 300 in the House and 70 in the Senate to compensate for the swishy RINOs. 291 and 67 would be the magic numbers, but you will need a cushion.

    • davidstone

      Republicans it will take to defund Obamacare (which essentially repeals it)?

      1.

  • earlgrey

    I had always thought that the taxes kick in right away, but not the benefits. I was reading “the Corner” blog on National Review Online and Jeffrey Anderson was indicating that is not the case. This is the first I heard of that. I thought it would be an important indicator of how easy it will be to repeal.

    Any idea how out of all this ugly process Obama still comes in at 48% approval? I want to gag.

    • ceili_dancer

      That the “surge” (2-3 points) comes from Democrats only. Probably the Kucinich types that are glad that some form of healthcare reform got through. The question is whether any numbers hold up or are some more expirations dates coming due on promises?

  • cari

    ball beginning to get rolling downhill…

    http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00960

    and this letter published at NRO from a doctor to her patients:

    My Dear Patient,

    As you must know, Congress has just passed extensive legislation governing health care delivery and insurance systems. Whether you agree with what it does or not, we are all now subject to this law and its sweeping changes.

    I have always conducted my medical practice with my patient?s best interests as my first priority. Although not legally obliged to do so, I have routinely provided you with a receipt that has all the codes necessary to bill your own healthinsurance company for any reimbursement to which you are entitled. Until now, that insurance company was a free enterprise despite the fact that it was heavily regulated by state and federal laws. Now the situation is quite different. Through the new law?s mandates, regulatory powers and reform, health insurance is and will be largely a government activity which will have an ever larger jurisdiction over how doctors practice, make clinical judgments and are paid.

    The new law provides for about 150 new government agencies, many of which are designed to be ?oversight? bureaucracies which will have the right to decide what medical care is legal to provide through insurance. Among other things, they will have the right to review my medical care of you and read your medical record. Now, as soon as you submit our economic transaction to your insurance company for reimbursement, you have involved me in these regulations and put me in the jurisdiction of government for my activities, decisions and behavior as your doctor.

    No one can have two masters. Either I can serve you as my patient or I can serve the government. Either I can continue to make your welfare and health my only concern, including the protection of your privacy and medical records, or I can abide by ever-increasing amounts of government regulations and dictates to my decisions. I can?t do both. I choose to continue to follow my conscience and practice medicine to serve you.

    For this reason, I am responding to the situation created by this new law by exercising my right not to participate in any health insurance program. I will still provide you with the same medical services that I always have, but the interaction will be exclusively and privately between you and me. This means that I will provide you only with a receipt for the services you have paid for, but without the additional information that is required to submit your receipt for reimbursement to your health insurance company. That is the only way I can make sure there will be no conflict between following the law and serving you. Because the law is now in effect, so must these changes be to my practice. (end of letter)

    My children’s pediatrician went to fee-for-service years ago and gave us a receipt with which we could get our own reimbursements from our insurance companies. Shortly after that, our family joined a Christian-based, catastrophic only “medical share” plan, so we are used to not having a “middle man” and have paid for own our preventative care out-of-pocket, usually at a 45-50% discount simply because we were paying cash.

    My question is: could one of the unintended consequences of the impending implementation of ObamaCare cause doctors and patients to escape to a more private fee-for-service relationship? I have found it to be both freeing and less expensive than costly insurance premiums. Maybe others will, too. I would love to see America return to a pre-Medicare/Medicaid, no government involved, healthcare system!

    Which leads me to another interesting question to ponder: could the passage of Obamacare, AND the resulting chaos of discovering what’s in it, reflecting on the ramifications, and the attempts to repeal and replace it with something better- could this “fruit basket turnover” of an ongoing healthcare legislative struggle finally be the impetus that gives us a new healthcare landscape that doesn’t include Medicare and Medicaid, but free market solutions instead?

    I know that’s miles away from where we are now, and there are a lot of “ifs” along that path, but if you don’t have a vision for where you want to end up, you won’t have a strategy for getting there.

    Just thinking with my keyboard and I’d love to hear your thoughts.

    • Common_Cents

      But with these elitist idiots there will prob be loopholes. If we all join the Amish they are exempt I believe. It is against my religion to be forced into govt health insurance slavery. Unintended consequences are the statist elites biotchslap. Enterprising Americans shall find a way to opt out.

      • Common_Cents
      • Menlo

        Just don’t pay the “penalty.” You may miss out on your tax refund; but barring further regulations, they can’t do anything more.

  • IJB
  • davidstone

    that this will be eventually repealed. In fact, I think it is almost a certainly for several reasons.

    1. Other entitlements that grew over time were popular when implemented. Obamacare was not passed with any bipartisan support and is not popular with the American public. A recent CBS poll shows people want by a 2-1 margin Obamacare repealed!!!

    2. Popular entitlement programs like medicare and social security benefit all 300 million Americans. Everyone is either on these programs or has a parent or grandparent on them. The entitlement also taps into America?s strong sense of individualism ? you pay into it and then collect it. In fact, there are many Americans that believe (although incorrectly) that the money they will collect from social security is simply the government giving them back what they paid it. These entitlements are nothing more than public annuities ? you pay in, and collect on retirement. Obamacare is nothing like this at all. It is a complex web of price controls, regulation, government buracracy, and federal subsidies that will be viewed as an entitlement to only a small percent of the population that does not vote. Most Americans will view this as a tax and a burden ? fining them or unfairly burdening them with buying a product they do not want or need to subsidize other people?s insurance. The only people that will actually receive an entitlement are Medicaid recipients (an unpopular program) and the less than one percent of the population who cannot get insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Senior citizens are going to be hit by this, people who have high deductible consumer friendly insurance will have to give it up for a more expensive policy, other people that have no insurance because they do not want it will have to pay a fine or buy the insurance. And if you think the subsidies are a big deal, consider the fact that between 9 and 10 million people without insurance live in a home with a household income above $75K per year. Subsidies decline as they approach $88K and above that are zero. In other words, a big chuck of those that will face fine or a purchase will not be eligible for any subsidies.

    Whatever small goodies exist in the bill that mainstream Americans will benefit from will pale in comparison to the outrage over the sting they will feel from Obamacare. For example, which side of the following debate would you want to be on? Obamacare will allow slacker kids to stay on insurance until they are 26, but senior citizens will see significant cuts and care rationing to pay for it.

    3. Demographics are not in the democrats favor. Every day for the next 20 years 10,000 new people will enroll in social security and medicare. Who would you rather have in your corner, senior citizens or medicare recipients?

    4. Obamacare will not work. As I heard Governor Pawlenty say at Greta last night, Obamacare is trying to install a 1970s General Motors structure (big bureaucracy, red tape, management layers, etc.) in a global economy with Apple computers and Iphones. This labyrinth of bureaucracy will not lower costs but cause premiums to skyrocket. And everything that goes wrong with healthcare from this point on will be owned by the democratic party.

    5. The debt is going to explode. The deficit has become a MAJOR issue among voters which is why Obama announced the mendacious spending freeze and delayed implementation of this program for 4 years. Our deficit this year is expected to be $1.6 trillion, or 11% of GDP and our debt is over 90% of GDP. What triggered Greece?s collapse was that there deficit grew to be over 12% of GDP and their debt over 100%. America can handle more debt than Greece, but only for so long. We all know that congress will not deliver against the assumptions in the CBO report (they never do). Therefore, when we get to 2013 and our government looks out over the next ten years, they will see a staggering amount of debt. Washington is going to get pressure from voters, the Fed, credit rating agencies lowering the credit rating of our debt, the international community (who will stop buying our bonds and will continue to push to replace the US dollar as the reserve currency), etc. Medicare and social security will still be pacing to go bankrupt. When deciding what needs to be cut, repealed, rolled back, etc., what do you think will win out? Raising taxes on middle class? Cutting benefits and rationing care to senior citizens? Or rolling back Obamacare?s unfunded mandates for Medicaid and federal subsidies that only benefit a small percent of Americans who don?t vote and have not even received the benefits because they have not even been implemented yet?

    Based on the fact that the public hates this, it will only benefit a few while sting the majority, will not work, and will create crushing debt levels, Congress will have to start rolling it back starting in 2013.

    Seriously, I by nature am not an optimist but I highly doubt Obamacare in its current state will survive beyond 2013.

    • erod
    • erod
    • azred

      Isn’t the tax on tanning businesses targeting a very specific demographic? White women are the largest client base. Followed by white men. The logical question begs to be asked why this business?

      • teresakoch

        that is not only sexist but age-ist….

  • rfpzzzzz

    67 votes to overturn presidential veto . 67-41 GOP= 26 votes needed. 36 senate seats up for reelection in 2010, 18 of which are DEM . If GOP holds all GOP and take all Dem senate seats ,they will still be 8 shy of 67 needed to overcome an Obama veto until his election in Nov 2012 . Obama will be in office until at least Jan 2013.
    Other than symbolism , why waste time on repeal now ? Taking over the House and defunding / investigating as much weird lib stuff as possible is the only real hope . Infighting with those who can win to get this done seems foolish if it gives seats to Dems.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Some of us have work to do.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      You’re on to something when you speak of defunding. :-)

    • davidstone

      defunding Obamacare (which I think we HAVE to happen anyway), is the same as repealing it. For example, if the subsidies and IRS agents are not funded, the regulations will have to be changed/repealed or premiums will go through the roof.

      Do you know how many more republicans than democrats it will take to defund Obamacare…?

      1.

    • JSobieski

      Repeal is a good unifying theme, a Contract with America, to win more seats
      Repeal is a good way to make sure that when we get a majority, that majority will act to repeal, because it was a national campaign issue.
      Conversely, ignoring an issue that the population cares about and agrees with you on is a bad way to win elections.

      It takes time to get things done. The idea of waiting another two years before campaigning on repeal is idiotic and self-defeating—it needs to be a high priority each and every day from here on out if we are to succeed.

      Politics is about more than what you can accomplish today or tomorrow, it is also about setting up victories in the future.

      Reagan set up the 1980 campaign by things he did in the 60s and 70s. If he had just shown up in 1980, he would would have been looked at as a freek.

      • roscopico

        This thing is so toxic and radioactive we must never lower our sights from the complete rollback of this POS. If your house fell into a sinkhole, you’d not natter about the dust on the furniture, and similarly this law is irredeemable.

        I do agree with rfpzzzz to the extent we must remove ALL funding for Obamacare and its sundry bureaucracies until complete repeal becomes possible, but unless we keep our goal of complete repeal at the fore we likely fail.

        • proudgop

          I mean even Fidel Castro loves Obamacare

      • rfpzzzzz

        My math is correct not foolish. I could be a wise ass and say you are selling something that no one benefits from until 2013 just like Obama’s health care plan but I will raise your name calling standard and say I agree there is some benefit to laying out a clear position about your feelings on the issue but I still think flipping the House , getting rid of the Pelosi Speakership and defunding the gears of the health care bill as well as much of the EPA etc. is something that can be realized this year and take effect by the end of next year. Business would be thrilled and the potential to help the economy now could be real. If you want to focus on things that could happen a political eternity away, I won’t call you foolish , but I think you are being more emotional than strategic in your thinking. …Just my opinion..

        • JSobieski

          We can’t repeal in 2010 so we shouldn’t mention it until 2012?

          What kind of political strategy is that?

          We need to keep the issue alive until 2012, and the only way to do it is to have all Republicans run on repeal in 2010.

          Your “strategy” of refraining from running on a “repeal” message makes no sense. Penny-wise, pound foolish.

          Politics is dynamic

        • JSobieski

          because he had no way of winning it by 1984.

          But to the contrary, running on winning the cold war in 1980 is what let to winning the cold war by 1988.

          Politics, history, and virtually any human endeavor is dynamic, not static. You can’t turn off the desire to repeal in 2010 only to try and turn it back on in 2012.

          It doesn’t work that way.

    • JSobieski

      How does one take over the house with addressing “the” burning issue of the day?

      • rfpzzzzz

        The point I am making is to sell defunding now because it can be delivered soon after payment (Nov ’10 vote)….sell repeal a bit now but heavier in the Nov ’12 cycle against Obama because it can be delivered soon after his defeat. I just want this thing stopped as soon as possible and some honesty in advertising. I am sick of being lied to and oversold hype that cannot be delivered.

        The 4 year college analogy doesn’t work. You generally have to start college as a freshman and it takes 4 years.
        You can stop health care now by defunding and repeal can be started in ’12 and completed in ’13. The courts will probably slow things until Nov. I am against it . I am really talking about what is the more effective strategy. I am listening if you have one.

        • JSobieski

          You can campaign on repeal on 2010 AND campaign on repeal in 2012.

          Its called building.

          Reagan spent much of 60s and 70s building a movement that took power in the 80s.

          Its not that complicated.

          • rfpzzzzz

            Caterpillar and Deere are expected to spend $250mil this year on this thing , they need immediate help and want to know what can be done now. With the forward discounting mechanism of the markets , if they believe relief can come soon business can be more positive about the future. Immigration and energy are coming next and the situation is urgent. I would rather think about and hear what can be done soon to jam these things up . I do not want to hear about 2013 in 2010. I guess you see it differently. I am for repeal but since it cannot be done now I am not really driven by that appeal. 2013 could be too late. That is about all I have on the topic.

          • JSobieski

            “Mitigate the bad effects” is not a rallying cry likely to keep people motivated. Keeping people motivated is the key the winnning this—both in the short and long term.

            Walking (long term) and chewing gum (short term) at the same time.

          • rfpzzzzz

            I agree with you on repeal but I get depressed if I think there is nothing that can be done other than wait until 2013. I just got into this topic because I think there needs to be a focus on what to do to defeat/frustrate these guys now. I just saw AT&T expects a billion $$ charge this year over this law. That is $1.5B already. We just cannot wait to go on the offensive. My 2 cents was to continue with the law suits and then take the House , investigate the hell out of the White House and defund everything you can. Repeal in 2013. That comforts me because it actually starts now. That was my basic point. I just felt people were finding false comfort in the repeal message without realizing it is a distant possibility.

          • JSobieski

            Anything that keeps the public engaged is a necessity. For different people, different things work.

            While I feel sympathy for many businesses, the Fortune 500 types don’t deserve much since they pretty much stayed quiet during the entire debate.

          • rfpzzzzz

            The latest I heard is that the prescription drug tax change amounts to a $14 B charge. That will translate into less profits, a slower economy and a general giant drag on the economy for the US. This is happening now . Real people work at these companies and more will be let go potentially. This isn’t about some class warfare . Their retirees very well could be dumped on to Medicare Part D which will translate into a greater deficit. This is only one aspect to the new Obamacare Law discovered in the first week.

        • JSobieski

          that means campaigning on a “I will repeal this monstrosity”

          • rfpzzzzz

            DeMint in newsmax

            Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., tells Newsmax that efforts to derail Obamacare in the Senate have been “to a large degree inconsequential” this week, but adds that a GOP midterm landslide in November could empower the GOP to use the appropriations process to impede its implementation.

            DeMint told Newsmax.TV that it is “probably correct” that the GOP would need to regain control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency to repeal the legislation altogether.

            “But we do have a chance if we have a good election this November, and repeal all the Democrats who voted for this thing, to slow down the implementation,” he says. “Through the appropriation process we can disallow the use of funds to hire the 16,000 IRS agents, and other aspects of this plan. So I’m going to continue the fight every day.”

            http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/demint-healthcare-senate-repeal/2010/03/24/id/353770